• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Standing on long rail journeys to be banned under Virgin Trains plan for airline-style fare

Status
Not open for further replies.

sprunt

Member
Joined
22 Jul 2017
Messages
1,156
There really needs to be something in the franchise agreements to severely disincentivise this practice. What might work would be a requirement to pay the full value of any Advance fare sold on any train on which the number of passengers on board exceeded the seating capacity of the relevant class.

Sorry, a requirement for who to pay the value of the Advance fares to whom? Not for the passengers travelling on Advance tickets to have to fork out extra, surely?
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

AM9

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2014
Messages
14,192
Location
St Albans
Is that actually true? There are a lot of people who do that in order to use cheaper Advance tickets rather than more expensive walk-ups even now. Euston (waiting rooms and food places) is full of them on a typical evening, and I'm sure the Tap is as well.

Some people would go by car instead, of course. But would an end to overcrowding attract others back?
But Euston, although frequently described in mundane terms on these forums, is towards the upper end of overall facilites in station terms. There are plenty of stations, even on inter-city routes that have very little to offer somebody who is refused on one train and having to wait for the next. Even those that do have some hospitality, many close late afternoon and all that is left is vending machines and a sparse waiting room. Not everybody travels to or from stations with annual patronage in the 10s of millions.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,545
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Sorry, a requirement for who to pay the value of the Advance fares to whom? Not for the passengers travelling on Advance tickets to have to fork out extra, surely?

The tickets should not be being sold at all, so the TOC would have to pay the full cost of the Advance ticket to the DfT as a penalty for selling them at inappropriate times.
 

pt_mad

Established Member
Joined
26 Sep 2011
Messages
2,960
The reason for having compulsory reservations (i.e. only selling the number of actual seats) is for comfort. It's not nice travelling on trains for a long period of time which are crammed to the gunwhales, where someone else steals your reserved seat and you can't get them to move, and you can't get through to the bog/buffet/the trolley can't get to you.

The argument against this is that it's better to be in discomfort than unable to travel at all.

The reason for dynamic pricing is for the TOC to make more money. The argument against this is, as you say, because you will have no idea what a journey is going to cost, and to get it for a reasonable price will almost certainly have to book it in advance.

I think we could really do with decoupling the two, as you can have either without the other. Cinemas, for example, have compulsory reservations but do not have dynamic pricing - it costs the same if you book the first seat a week out as if you walk up and buy the last one 30 seconds before it starts.
There is certainly an arguement for your point that it is better to travel in cramped conditions than not to travel at all. If this wasn't the case, customers wouldn't board when it's clear they will be standing in vestibles. It may be that the level of benefit from actually traveling, i.e. higher wages from a job in a city Vs staying in their town, or getting to the social event Vs not going, outweighs the inconvenience of standing.

Add to that the alternative of taking the bus, the coach, or the roads, and having to get to the coach station. As much as many feel standing is not acceptable, compare that to the alternative of driving to London, in the central zones, and paying the emissions and congestions fees, and finding parking and paying for that. It'd take a lot of inconvenience to turn to that alternative imo.
 
Last edited:

PeterC

Established Member
Joined
29 Sep 2014
Messages
4,073
Personally I am agnostic on the issue but I am aware that BR used seat regulation in the past. Did the sky fall in then as people seem to say it would now?
 

duffield

Established Member
Joined
31 Jul 2013
Messages
1,308
Location
East Midlands
There is certainly an arguement for your point that it is better to travel in cramped conditions than not to travel at all.

Also, on sevices leaving London, typically only the shorter distance passengers will have to stand for their whole trip; the train will usually become emptier as it gets further away.

This shows a particularly bad effect of compulsory seat reservations: a train might have seats for 90% of the journey but you can't get on it because it's 'full' for the first 10%. And then we get the proposal to have seperate trains for the first part of the journey for the shorter distances, but typically there are no paths for these, and it means the unfortunate passengers wanting to *join* the long distance trains at one of these 'short distance' services no longer served.
The whole thing seems to be constructed around the arguement that compulsory seat reservations are such a good thing, anything and everything else should be sacrificed to permit them.

My take is that it comes down to this:

If you haven't got enough capacity, no standing makes that *much* worse. Cut capacity by 30% as a 'solution' to lack of capacity? Seems mad to me. And it would then actually *reduce* the incentive to increase capacity because instead of passengers standing, they'd get back in the car, so they are lost to the railways and hence 'invisible', and the railway would *seem* to be running at but not over capacity.
Meanwhile as a result road traffic increases and becomes slower and more polluting. Super.

If you *have* got enough capacity, compulsory reservations don't serve a useful purpose since you'll get a seat without one.
 

6Gman

Established Member
Joined
1 May 2012
Messages
8,383
Transfer local services to regional franchises?

The point is that - in many cases - the local services are provided by long-distance trains, and only by long-distance trains e.g. Crewe - Warrington/Wigan/Preston.
 

6Gman

Established Member
Joined
1 May 2012
Messages
8,383
Personally I am agnostic on the issue but I am aware that BR used seat regulation in the past. Did the sky fall in then as people seem to say it would now?

My recollection is that seat regulation was mainly used on holiday services where people's travel arrangements were predictable.
 

jon0844

Veteran Member
Joined
1 Feb 2009
Messages
28,013
Location
UK
Don't know what I'm doing right (or wrong) but on the rare occasions I travel on a heavily loaded train I'm happy if Mrs 6G has a seat, with me standing nearby. Presumably that would no longer be an option. Or would I be ordered to a seat three carriages away?

Great opportunity for TOCs to copy airlines and offer free seat reservations that split people up, then offer a premium choose your own seat service. Nicer seats can cost more than others. Windows extra? Away from toilets? Nearest the shop?
 

RLBH

Member
Joined
17 May 2018
Messages
962
Secondly, the railway just has not gripped the "low demand periods" aspect, and continue to market Advances at periods of high demand, adding insult to injury by doing so on short trains.
The number of advance tickets sold really ought to be limited to the capacity of the train, less the expected number of passengers using flexible tickets on that service. Quite how one determines that number in a transparent way, I have no idea.
 

Taunton

Established Member
Joined
1 Aug 2013
Messages
10,020
Also, on sevices leaving London, typically only the shorter distance passengers will have to stand for their whole trip; the train will usually become emptier as it gets further away.

This shows a particularly bad effect of compulsory seat reservations: a train might have seats for 90% of the journey but you can't get on it because it's 'full' for the first 10%.
As exemplified by my recent example on the 18.00 Kings Cross to Leeds, leaving full and standing - and me travelling to Leeds standing with a full fare ticket. Get to Stevenage and 50% of the passengers got out.

Apparently this used to be a pick-up only call, but not only was that changed recently but LNER then offered operator-only tickets a bit less than normal Any Operator ones to stiff Great Northern on the revenue. Obviously longer distance passengers not getting a seat on departure was considered irrelevant.
 

RT4038

Established Member
Joined
22 Feb 2014
Messages
4,180
The point is that - in many cases - the local services are provided by long-distance trains, and only by long-distance trains e.g. Crewe - Warrington/Wigan/Preston.

But this could change in the future. The current way of operating is not preserved in aspic.
 

RT4038

Established Member
Joined
22 Feb 2014
Messages
4,180
Also, on sevices leaving London, typically only the shorter distance passengers will have to stand for their whole trip; the train will usually become emptier as it gets further away.

This shows a particularly bad effect of compulsory seat reservations: a train might have seats for 90% of the journey but you can't get on it because it's 'full' for the first 10%. And then we get the proposal to have seperate trains for the first part of the journey for the shorter distances, but typically there are no paths for these, and it means the unfortunate passengers wanting to *join* the long distance trains at one of these 'short distance' services no longer served.
The whole thing seems to be constructed around the arguement that compulsory seat reservations are such a good thing, anything and everything else should be sacrificed to permit them.

My take is that it comes down to this:

If you haven't got enough capacity, no standing makes that *much* worse. Cut capacity by 30% as a 'solution' to lack of capacity? Seems mad to me. And it would then actually *reduce* the incentive to increase capacity because instead of passengers standing, they'd get back in the car, so they are lost to the railways and hence 'invisible', and the railway would *seem* to be running at but not over capacity.
Meanwhile as a result road traffic increases and becomes slower and more polluting. Super.

If you *have* got enough capacity, compulsory reservations don't serve a useful purpose since you'll get a seat without one.

Standing long distances dissuades passengers from travelling, so this demand is just as invisible. Capacity should not include standing on long distance trains. Aside from compulsory reservation, there has not been one other practical suggestion as to how to eliminate this. Just train enthusiasts arguing for the status quo.
 

Clayton

On Moderation
Joined
15 Apr 2018
Messages
259
I suspect that this model operates on the continent for fast long distance trains that don’t stop much and are identifiably special. Our trains stop more and we don’t yet have special TGV type trains
 

Hadders

Veteran Member
Associate Staff
Senior Fares Advisor
Joined
27 Apr 2011
Messages
12,984
Apparently this used to be a pick-up only call, but not only was that changed recently but LNER then offered operator-only tickets a bit less than normal Any Operator ones to stiff Great Northern on the revenue. Obviously longer distance passengers not getting a seat on departure was considered irrelevant.

Pick up only at Stevenage was removed in GNER days so over 10 years ago.

LNER only fares were introduced a couple of years ago but they aren't any use for commuters as there are no LNER services from Stevenage to Kings Cross in the morning peak.
 

Esker-pades

Established Member
Joined
23 Jul 2015
Messages
3,766
Location
Beds, Bucks, or somewhere else
Why is "walk up and travel" so sacred on this thread?
Because some people need to travel to places at short notice.

Where do people go to by train after arriving by plane at Birmingham International ie do they really need to be on VWC? Genuine question btw.
It depends where they're going. 3 of the 9 trains to central Birmingham are VWC operated. There simply isn't the capacity to prevent passengers from boarding those trains, or to introduce replacement ones.

Transfer local services to regional franchises?
For the WCML examples, there isn't the capacity to run these additional trains.
For other examples, there may not be (Derby to Sheffield has 4 fast trains per hour, so the slower local trains may result in a slowing of the IC services.
Also, what's the point of introducing new trains when the existing service works perfectly well? Why introduce a new Warrington to Wigan shuttle when the existing IC services can cope with the short distance passengers? And, if there are a lot of shirt distance passengers, how does removing trains available to them help with crowding?
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,545
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Add to that the alternative of taking the bus, the coach, or the roads, and having to get to the coach station. As much as many feel standing is not acceptable, compare that to the alternative of driving to London, in the central zones, and paying the emissions and congestions fees, and finding parking and paying for that. It'd take a lot of inconvenience to turn to that alternative imo.

Coaches have compulsory reservations, though because it's easier to put extra capacity on (and NatEx often do) I don't think I've ever not been able to buy a ticket on a walk-up basis on NatEx when I've wanted one. No idea about Megabus as they barely serve MK.

The car may be the only option otherwise...
 

duffield

Established Member
Joined
31 Jul 2013
Messages
1,308
Location
East Midlands
Standing long distances dissuades passengers from travelling, so this demand is just as invisible. Capacity should not include standing on long distance trains. Aside from compulsory reservation, there has not been one other practical suggestion as to how to eliminate this. Just train enthusiasts arguing for the status quo.

It's not really invisible; the evidence is the number of passengers who *do* stand, who will at least give some idea of the minimum seat deficit. Ideally capacity should be sufficent to not include standing *for long distances* on long distance services, but there's not a big problem with standing for *short* distances on long distance services (e.g. Birmingham International to Birmingham New Street).

The three basic answers to standing being put forward are:
- To increase seating capacity by whatever means (longer trains, more trains, HS2 etc.) (an entirely *practical* solution which is basically what is being done, only too slowly).
- To put up with the situation as it is
- To cut overall peak capacity drastically and prevent people travelling (via compulsory reservations and a standing ban) and force traffic onto the roads instead, slowing down road travel and making it more polluting and losing customers from the railway.

I find it difficult to see how anyone can advocate *just* the last option wihtout option 1; and if you combine option 1 and 3, then 3 becomes redundant - if there is enough seating capacity why force people to reserve?

I'm afraid I just cannot accept the arguement that the solution to a lack of seating capacity is to reduce total peak capacity, seated and standing, by maybe 30% or more. I would imagine there would be disorder at the London terminals on the first day of introduction, and they wouldn't be 'train enthusiasts' rioting.
 

VT 390

Established Member
Joined
7 Dec 2018
Messages
1,366
If having people standing on a long distance service is really a problem for people who have reserved seats then why not have a no standing rule in just 1 or 2 carriages on each service which are reservation only where you have to pay a bit more to have a more pleasant travelling environment?
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,545
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Another option would be to have a more dynamic but still walk-up fares structure - if there were say Anytime and Off Peak 1, 2 and 3 or something perhaps? This would work better still with single-fare pricing as you wouldn't go "I'll just take a busy train anyway as I've already paid". It would also require some bravery (against criticism) in that Friday evening and Sunday afternoon/evening would probably not be at the cheapest rate.

That would at least smooth out demand.
 

Puffing Devil

Established Member
Joined
11 Apr 2013
Messages
2,742
How about a limit on reservations on short legs? Wilmslow/Stoke to Manchester and v.v.= no reservations? Same on VT to MK. The longer distance Pax get a seat and the rest take their chances.
 

RailWonderer

Established Member
Joined
25 Jul 2018
Messages
1,588
Location
All around the network
I can find a list anywhere of busiest VT services, of the many times I've been on Virgin I have always had a seat. Does anyone have a list, or know of any full and standing services?
 

RLBH

Member
Joined
17 May 2018
Messages
962
How about a limit on reservations on short legs? Wilmslow/Stoke to Manchester and v.v.= no reservations? Same on VT to MK. The longer distance Pax get a seat and the rest take their chances.
Moderately sensible - if the intercity train is pretending to be an outer suburban train for part of its' journey, the commuters should have to pretend they're catching an outer suburban train. Including the Olympic Sprint method of seat allocation. Although in practice I suspect that frequent passengers in this category are less likely to hold reservations, whilst infrequent or connecting passengers might be put off by not being able to reserve a seat.

If there was an easy solution it would have been done already, I suppose!
 

harz99

Member
Joined
14 Jul 2009
Messages
726
If having people standing on a long distance service is really a problem for people who have reserved seats then why not have a no standing rule in just 1 or 2 carriages on each service which are reservation only where you have to pay a bit more to have a more pleasant travelling environment?

You mean a bit like Silver Standard, anyone remember that?
 

al78

Established Member
Joined
7 Jan 2013
Messages
2,402
The three basic answers to standing being put forward are:
- To increase seating capacity by whatever means (longer trains, more trains, HS2 etc.) (an entirely *practical* solution which is basically what is being done, only too slowly).
- To put up with the situation as it is
- To cut overall peak capacity drastically and prevent people travelling (via compulsory reservations and a standing ban) and force traffic onto the roads instead, slowing down road travel and making it more polluting and losing customers from the railway.

I find it difficult to see how anyone can advocate *just* the last option wihtout option 1; and if you combine option 1 and 3, then 3 becomes redundant - if there is enough seating capacity why force people to reserve?

I'm afraid I just cannot accept the arguement that the solution to a lack of seating capacity is to reduce total peak capacity, seated and standing, by maybe 30% or more. I would imagine there would be disorder at the London terminals on the first day of introduction, and they wouldn't be 'train enthusiasts' rioting.

Reducing total peak capacity restricts the number of people able to travel by train. These people will be forced to abandon their journey or drive. By driving, road congestion is increased, so the government can use rising congestion as an excuse to increase motoring related taxes. When these are increased enough, people slowly drift back to rail, stretching demand again, which gives the government (or whoever) an excuse to increase rail fares, to the point where people revert back to driving, then the government increases motoring taxes as an excuse to combat congestion, people move back to rail, then the rail fares increase well beyond inflation to combat congestion, lather rinse repeat until the cost of travelling is so expensive that only the wealthy can afford it. Much easier to take advantage of the situation and squeeze people financially as much as possible than spend some money increasing capacity.
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,284
Let's get rid of advance fares entirely. Why should people who can plan in advance get cheaper prices?

If you plan ahead you can get cheaper fuel for you car by not filling up at motorway services (sometimes by not even going much further than you would if you were).

A classic example is the Tesco/Shell garages at the A34/M3 junction a matter of minutes away from the Winchester services on the M3. Yes it's a minute or two more to stop there if traffic is bad, but it's a lot cheaper.

Those that plan ahead often are able to get better value than those who don't.

For instance, if your football team have a chance of playing in the final of a European Cup, is it not better to book flights & hotel which you can amend for a small charge (so you could do a city break at another time if they don't get through) as soon as possible, or wait for the flights to be £1,800 once it's known that they are going and then book?
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,284
There is a fair scope for lengthening commuter trains out of Euston with more stock (e.g. 360s, or retaining 350/2s, or more 319s or similar). Only about 6 services out of Euston in the evening peak are 12-car. If they all were that would be a good whack of extra capacity.

At I understand it the, what was LM, services are due to be made longer under the current franchise, so there's likely to be more full length services.

The problem is that there's not all that much scope to add extra services (which is generally how you add significantly more capacity, in that a 8 to 12 coach expansion gains you less than a 0 to 8 coach expansion).
 

Dr Day

Member
Joined
16 Oct 2018
Messages
541
Location
Bristol
How about a limit on reservations on short legs? Wilmslow/Stoke to Manchester and v.v.= no reservations? Same on VT to MK. The longer distance Pax get a seat and the rest take their chances.
Fine in principle for short distance passengers, but there are still long distance passengers whose overall journey includes a short distance leg on a long distance train, and who want to travel on an Advance ticket. The way current Advance ticketing works (as I understand it) you need availability of Advances on each leg of the overall journey, which may include short legs on long distance reservable services.

So yes, could work as long as you could still get Advances covering those short legs, without physical seat reservations, and it was well communicated.

Also worth noting TOCs have short distance Advances so that they can keep all the revenue rather than share it as they have to with inter-available walk up tickets. This (in general) enables cheaper options for passengers to be available.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top